Author Topic: Secondary Objects of Infallibility  (Read 565 times)

2Vermont

Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« on: November 13, 2017, 05:54:13 PM »
Starting on page 9 of the Pius XII reform thread, Anonimus asserts that the Pian liturgical reforms were dangerous to the Faith and therefore calls into question Church teaching on the Secondary Objects of Infallibility.  According to Van Noort these include:

Included in the secondary object of infallibility are the following:
    1) theological conclusions;
    2) dogmatic facts
    3) the general discipline of the Church;
    4) approval of religious orders;
    5) canonization of saints.


It's interesting to note that even those traditional clergy that do not follow the Pian reforms never state that the reforms were dangerous to the Faith in and of themselves.

If we are to consider the Pian reforms as dangerous to the Faith, what other secondary objects of infallibility can we throw out?
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 05:56:07 PM by 2Vermont »
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Anonimus

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2017, 07:15:14 PM »
Starting on page 9 of the Pius XII reform thread, Anonimus asserts that the Pian liturgical reforms were dangerous to the Faith and therefore calls into question Church teaching on the Secondary Objects of Infallibility.  According to Van Noort these include:

Included in the secondary object of infallibility are the following:
    1) theological conclusions;
    2) dogmatic facts
    3) the general discipline of the Church;
    4) approval of religious orders;
    5) canonization of saints.


It's interesting to note that even those traditional clergy that do not follow the Pian reforms never state that the reforms were dangerous to the Faith in and of themselves.

If we are to consider the Pian reforms as dangerous to the Faith, what other secondary objects of infallibility can we throw out?

You started another thread to rehash the same old ground?

It was I who quoted Van Noort on secondary infallibility in the first place, and asked the question which you have only slightly repackaged to begin another thread.

Starting to feel a bit like groundhog day with you (i.e., Your MO seems to be to want to repeat everything, and ask others to repeat everything).

The least you could do is read the materials previously supplied (i.e., I am guessing since you do not do that much, you are unaware that you habitually repeat already covered ground).

Sigh...

Regarding your gratuitous claim that those who oppose the Pian reforms do not allege the changes therein to be harmful: Yet another instance of not reading already posted materials (or, the determination not to be affected by them). 

I have given ample proof to the contrary.

PS: Be careful you do not take your final statement too far, as it may come back to haunt you: The approved theologians also acknowledge the identity of a universally recognized claimant to the papacy to be a dogmatic fact, and therefore covered by secondary infallibility.

Tongue in cheek: "What other secondary objects of infallibility can we throw out?"
« Last Edit: November 13, 2017, 09:05:15 PM by Anonimus »
 

2Vermont

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2017, 04:39:19 AM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)
« Last Edit: November 14, 2017, 05:01:22 AM by 2Vermont »
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Anonimus

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2017, 02:05:45 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.
 

Mysterium Fidei

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2017, 03:26:14 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

But 50 years after Vatican II, the vast majority of those who regard Bergoglio as the "pope" are themselves not Catholic, or do not adhere to the Catholic Faith.

Do you think that Vatican II and the resulting changes including the Novus Ordo Mass, was at the time, universally and peaceably accepted by the Faithful?
 

2Vermont

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2017, 03:44:38 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

Because Van Noort also teaches, in accordance with Divine Law, that public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, when he taught that dogmatic facts were secondary objects of infallibility he couldn't possibly have been referring to the so-called universal acceptance of a heretic pope. 
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Rubecorks

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2017, 04:53:34 PM »
I agree that this thread was unnecessary, and even a diversion to the thread that was already directly on this subject.
 

2Vermont

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2017, 05:27:20 PM »
But as you can see Rube this thread has already gone into a larger discussion of the Secondary Objects of Infallibility.
"Anything, but sedevacantism"

(If you are open to sedevacantism and not a rabid anti-sede, then this is not about you)
 

Anonimus

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2017, 11:13:26 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

But 50 years after Vatican II, the vast majority of those who regard Bergoglio as the "pope" are themselves not Catholic, or do not adhere to the Catholic Faith.

Do you think that Vatican II and the resulting changes including the Novus Ordo Mass, was at the time, universally and peaceably accepted by the Faithful?

When you say they "are themselves not Catholic," I take you to mean that nearly all those who describe themselves as Catholic have in fact lost membership in the Church.

My response is that intellectual error and material heresy -according to most, but not all- approved pre-conciliar theologians does not deprive one of Church membership (but I acknowledge the matter is debatable).

Whether the V2 changes, NOM, etc were universally and peaceably accepted at the time is debatable, but that Francis was universally and peaceably accepted by 99.9999% of the Church is not.

His papacy (unlike the claimants in the GWS, for example) would certainly have been considered by Van Noort, Billuart, Berry, and Billot, et al as a dogmatic fact on the basis of this criteria, because as Billot explains: The Church is infallible not only in her teaching, but in her believing as well.

If 99.9999% could be mistaken, and 0.00001% correctly deduce Francis was not truly Pope, there are insurmountable implications regarding the Church's visibility which in my opinion not only make such an event virtually impossible, but also suggest to me that Cajetan/John of St. Thomas were correct in their understanding regarding the deposition/loss of office for a Pope.

Total Digression here, but one author suggests sedes have mischaracterized the "debate" between St. Bellermine and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas.  That is to say, the issue in debate was only what role the Church had to play in the deposition, with Bellarmine saying once the Church recognized the Pope was heretical he lost the office ipso facto, and Cajetan/John of St. Thomas saying he remained pope until a second declaration announced him deposed.

But according to this author, the issue was NEVER that a pope is immediately deposed whenever he should become a heretic, without the Church declaring the heresy.  Once again, the implications for the unity and governance of the Church would become impossible according to such a readaing, with some people perceiving the heresy, and concluding sedevacante, and others remaining ignorant of it, and yielding to his teachings.

That just can't happen, and for that reason it seems unavoidable to me that the Church has to have a role in announcing that the Pope has deposed himself.
 

Anonimus

Re: Secondary Objects of Infallibility
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2017, 11:15:51 PM »
Anonimus,

Yes, I started a new thread because I thought it was needed.  I'm not asking you to repeat anything and I know you started your arguments off with secondary objects of infallibility in the other thread. It seems as if the other thread's posts are focused on what others have said about the reforms (and not the SO of I) despite the fact that you did mention the SO of I.

As far as I'm concerned you don't have to post in this thread at all if you do not want to do so because you feel you have to repeat yourself. I was actually going to ask you to start a new thread anyway.  I find that your new angle could have used one. 

To be clear, I wish to be very specific here.  If the Pian reforms were dangerous as you and others believe/believed them to be, then where does that leave the Church teaching of secondary objects of infallibility?  It teaches that the discipline of the Church can NOT be dangerous to the Faith.  Regardless of what people "believe", how can the liturgical changes of a true pope be dangerous to the Faith?

And I'm throwing that question out to all of the members, not just the ones who are still reading the old, long thread (which if we're honest, has been all over the place and I suspect that many aren't even reading it anymore). I may find that no one wants to address the topic of this thread either.

I also wanted to make it clear that even Father Cekada (and those well-known anti-Pian clergy who currently do not follow the Pian reforms) doesn't believe this.  I got the impression that those you mentioned who do were from the past. 

Did I read all of your materials Anonimus?  No I did not.  I was honest about that when I first posted to you.  I asked you to summarize some things and you refused to do so.  This thread is not interested in all of the details you posted.  The only thing that is important (and I'm taking your word on it) is that there were people in the past who believed that the changes were dangerous to the Faith.  Got it? 

Now if you could stop making sarcastic accusations and move on, that would be great.   :)

2V-

Why do you worry about the consequences to the SO of I with regard to liturgical laws, but not with regard to the identity of the Pope?

That seems inconsistent to me.

Because Van Noort also teaches, in accordance with Divine Law, that public heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.  Therefore, when he taught that dogmatic facts were secondary objects of infallibility he couldn't possibly have been referring to the so-called universal acceptance of a heretic pope.

Some people seem to think a public heretic is anyone who utters a heresy in public.

In reality (paraphrasing), a public heretic is one who has been judged a heretic by competent authority.

When have any of these post V2 popes been so judged?